My verdict

There seems to be little doubt that this policy will eventually sink the onshore wind industry in this country. The potential for the technology to compete without subsidies is poor and the handing over of power to local authorities will likely be the final nail in the industry's coffin.

Tories and many industry leaders are loath to admit that this will put an end to onshore wind, saying that current capacity will be maintained and even grow for a time as projects granted permission before 2015 come online. But what industry survives without long-term growth? For onshore wind to continue to generate investment in research and development (and therefore to stay competitive) it will need to have the potential for new growth and projects. As Jennifer Webber, from RenewableUK says, this policy "will kill the industry dead".

That is their prerogative, especially if the EU fails to introduce a 2030 renewable energy target as some observers are suggesting they will. But the Committee on Climate Change says the level of onshore wind will need to more than triple by 2030 if the UK is to meet its own emissions reduction commitments.

David Cameron said the policy was a removal of unnecessary subsidies. But this argument washes away quickly when you consider that onshore wind is less expensive than other renewable alternatives, which will continue to attract public funding.

What this is really about is votes in rural areas and an appeal to the NIMBYism that sways the Tory right towards Ukip. In the end, windfarms, like migrant workers and the EU, are seen as alien edifices being imposed on the British way of life. Renewable energy creates jobs, but it fails to create them in the areas where it changes the skyline. Thus locals feel the costs outweigh the benefits. The majority of Brits are for windfarms, but the Tories have decided that the votes they need are not only opposed, but they are so strongly opposed they will decide their vote on it.

Updated at 5.18pm BST

4.33pm BST

Cameron comments

Prime minister David Cameron has weighed into the debate, telling Sky News this is not the end of onshore wind but we "won't see lots of new large-scale wind farm developments".

"Onshore wind has an important role to play in generating electricity in our country. We want a varied supply of electricity.

"We are going to be having a decent amount of onshore wind but the fact is we don't need any more than what we have got in the planning system.

"We have now got enough to meet targets, make sure our energy is diversified.

"I have always said we shouldn't keep subsidies for longer than is necessary.

"I am saying a future Conservative government would no longer subsidise onshore wind and have a proper system in the planning system so that local views are paramount, rather than being overridden by national imperatives.

"It's not the end of onshore wind it will make an important contribution to our country's electricity but you won't see lots of new large-scale wind farm developments.

"What we have got in the planning system and already built is enough to provide for our needs."

Updated at 4.43pm BST

4.17pm BST

Your comments

Shameless politiking by the tories to head off the UKIP threat. The horrible thing is that DC 100% knows that onshore wind provides clean cheap energy, but is pandering to rich reactive curtain twitchers who are worried about property prices.

Politicians need to grow some balls and think about their kids future and less about Nigel Farage.

Madness. They say they want to cut the cost of 'green crap' while appeasing their rural constituents, so they phase out the cheapest low carbon energy source (onshore wind), and replace it with more expensive nuclear, rooftop solar and offshore wind.

And if they believe that stopping onshore wind will appease the shire counties, wait till they experience what widespread fracking will do to their back yards!

Typical reactive nonsense from the left. This country produces a higher percentage of its energy from renewables than most western economies, and we've met our internationally agreed renewable energy targets (unlike many).

But you can't base you're entire energy strategy on green energy sources which are dependant on the weather. We need to balance our energy sources, which is why subsidies can now be directed to other areas.

Updated at 4.29pm BST

4.08pm BST

Carbon Brief's Robin Webster has published an analysis that questions whether the UK will reach its greenhouse emissions reduction targets of 80% by 2050 without increasing onshore wind. She points to figures from the government's Commission on Climate Change (CCC) which shows various scenarios for reaching that target. All involve an increase in onshore wind from 7GW now to 25GW by 2030. Projects which already have planning permission would bring the UK's onshore wind to a Tory maximum of 13GW, which Michael Fallon says is enough.

It would certainly be possible for the UK to do so in 2020 and keep cutting carbon emissions for another three decades - but it would be a lot more expensive.

The government expects the cost of offshore wind to come down in the 2020s - but not enough to overtake onshore wind. Overall, investing in 10 GW of onshore wind in the 2020s rather than other less-developed clean technologies could save the economy two to three billion pounds, the CCC predicts.

Or to put it another way - failing to invest in 10 GW of onshore wind could cost the country two to three billion pounds in the 2020s.

By 2030, onshore wind will still be cheaper to develop than offshore wind, and gas or coal power stations fitted with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, the CCC says.

The Tories' plan to cap wind power could ensure tackling climate change will be more expensive, not less.

Updated at 4.08pm BST

3.50pm BST

Angela Knight, chief executive of Energy UK, told reporters at the Guardian this afternoon that this policy would not kill the onshore wind industry because existing plants would remain operational. However she did not say new plants would continue to be built. She said the Conservatives were responding to local concerns that were not taken into account when onshore wind policy was formulated in 2008 and that there had been a sustained campaign against onshore wind inside the Tory party.

"I don't think it's much of a surprise because it follows concerns raised by MPs in the Houses of Parliament," she said.

She also commented on the numbers of jobs brought to local areas by different energy technologies. "For coal power stations you're talking thousands of jobs, gas it goes down to a few hundred and renewables it is just the supply chain." This could indicate why wind power is so susceptible to local concerns as its employment benefits are not necessarily located in the region.

Updated at 4.11pm BST

2.19pm BST

Political reaction

Liberal Democrat energy and climate change secretary Ed Davey said the party would continue to fight their coalition partners on onshore wind.

“We have already fought the Conservatives over capping onshore wind in this Government – and won.

“Putting the brakes on onshore wind would be disastrous for business and jobs in our growing green economy. Onshore wind is one of the cheapest forms of green energy, so cutting it could lead to higher bills.

“You can’t trust the Conservatives on their own to build a fairer society. Only with Liberal Democrats in Government can we build a stronger economy and a fairer society.”

Julian Smith, Tory MP for Skipton & Ripon said today that the policy was the fulfilment of a long campaign by rural Tories whose constituents disliked the aesthetic impact of windfarms.

"I am delighted for all the communities across my constituency, North Yorkshire and the country who have been given this fantastic commitment by the Conservatives. Ending future subsidies and adding planning powers to allow communities to say 'no' are sensible and responsible moves and the result of years of campaigning by Conservative MPs representing the concerns of their constituents, the majority of whom have totally had their fill of wind."

“What we really need to know from the Tories is how they intend to achieve the renewable energy targets we are signed up for with the EU. Only Malta and Luxembourg have a worse record on renewables with the UK. The coalition has cut spending on energy conservation meaning we will have to find more energy in more expensive ways. This is a government without an energy strategy.”

If Scotland votes to break away, the remaining UK will not come close to achieving its targets without wind. About 15 GW of 2020 renewables will be in Scotland or in Scottish waters. Only about 18 GW will be in England and Wales. Independence will mean 40% of total renewables will disappear but only 10% of UK electricity consumption.

Scottish renewables are cheap to generate - needing a subsidy of on average £44 or less than half the rest of the UK. A move away from onshore wind in England and Wales will further increase the average levels of subsidy required, raising household bills.

More industry reaction

“Before the last election, David Cameron promised to lead the greenest government ever - that promise lies in tatters now, as he prepares to fight the next election dancing to the tune set by UKIP.

“It's a shameful abdication of his responsibility as prime minister, to put his party before the country in this way.

“We need an energy policy that makes sense, environmentally and economically, one that can give us energy independence, lower bills and abate climate change. What we have instead is one that only makes sense politically, an energy policy for the Tory party.

“This kind of nakedly political positioning from the Conservatives undermines all the positive work this Government has put into renewables. The shale gas industry has Government’s unwavering support, and yet according to its own figures its potential for jobs is less than the renewables industry already achieves in the UK.

“Renewables are delivering today, while any potential benefits from shale gas are still some way off. Renewable energy is attracting investment, creating jobs, cutting costs, improving our energy security and preserving our environment. We urge the pragmatic wing of the Conservative Party to resist this political game-playing and make their voices heard in the debate.”

"The effect of removing subsidies for onshore wind will be to seriously damage British industry and increase energy prices for consumers. Onshore wind energy is the cheapest source of renewable energy, which means with support cut a future government would have to rely on more expensive technologies - pushing energy prices up.

"The IPCC report last week showed that the world urgently needs to switch to renewable sources of energy. We need investment in all forms of renewable energy, but the government should in particular be supporting those that already have the capacity to deliver for Britain and have thousands of skilled workers for."

"We should all feel cheated by Michael Fallon's insane decision to ban future onshore wind developments should the Conservatives win the next election. It goes against common sense in every conceivable way.

"Wind is cheap, clean and straightforward to install. Having more of it will reduce bills for everyone for the long-term. Having more of it will help clear up our air pollution problems and mitigate the effects of climate change. Having more of it makes us a better society and a better economy (especially if it is funded by us - so we can financially profit from it too) because the wind is a free, clean and infinite resource.

"It sets a disturbing precedent for democracy when a policy with such far-reaching ramifications for energy, the economy and the climate is made to pander to the views of an extreme few, against popular opinion."

"The Conservative party's pledge was creating uncertainty for onshore wind investments beyond 2020, the year when Britain's target to generate 15 percent of its energy from green sources has to be met.

""(This announcement) reinforces questions about the prospects of renewable energy post-2020, when the current UK and EU frameworks expire," said Tom Murley, responsible for renewable energy funds at HgCapital."

Updated at 4.11pm BST

12.47pm BST

"Britain will still meet its renewable energy targets if it scraps support for onshore wind, but the cost of meeting those targets will rise as the country turns to more expensive alternatives," says Gerard Wynn at Responding to Climate Change. "The shift to offshore wind is politically motivated, to satisfy the rural backbone of Conservative Party support, and appease concerns about landscape blight."

Wynn says the UK’s national renewable energy action plan (NREAP) anticipated some 38.2 gigawatts (GW) of renewable power capacity in 2020. Operational capacity is currently 16.1 GW. There is a project pipeline that would provide an additional19.3 GW - bringing the total to 35.4 GW. Some of these projects will not receive funding, but others will take their place meaning Britain should easily reach the 2020 targets even without new onshore windfarms.

Onshore wind contributes vast more electricity than any other renewable source in the UK and under Tory plans it will continue to do so for the time being.

The decision to favour offshore over onshore wind is an implicit subsidy for preserving landscapes for rural dwellers, the main source of votes for a Conservative party which faces electoral competition from the UK Independence Party.

Cutting subsidies could cost money

Earlier this month, Professor Richard Green, who is a member of a working group reviewing UK energy, told the BBC that removing subsidies from onshore windfarms would shift the focus to offshore wind costing taxpayers millions. Green said taxpayers would pay £300,000 for each turbine that shifted offshore.

The BBC reported:

Under government plans, onshore wind turbines will receive £90 per megawatt hour of electricity generated from 2017. But offshore turbines get more aid, around £140 per megawatt hour.

"That's about £300,000 per year per turbine that is moved from onshore to offshore," said Professor Green, who is an economist.

"That is the cost in additional subsidy, at the rates the government is planning to pay in about 2017. Those subsidies are recovered through electricity bills."

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Donna Hume said today that the policy made little economic sense.

“Scrapping support for wind turbines would be bad news for jobs, energy bills and the environment.

“Onshore wind has fallen dramatically in price – it already costs less than nuclear, and is set to be cheaper than gas in the next few years.

“Scrapping wind subsidies, rather than phasing them out as costs fall, will simply lead to higher fuel bills for cash-strapped households and make it harder to tackle climate change."

12.07pm BST

Mark Pengelly, editor of Energy Risk, says this policy is another blow to already shaky investor confidence. While he was not willing to write the industry off altogether, he said the government had sent "very mixed messages" about how it intended to approach renewable energy targets and that there will certainly be turbines that do not get built if the Tories are elected in 2015. "Investors will be looking at this and the certainty investors were hoping to gain post the electricity reforms will dissolve... You'd definitely think twice about investing in onshore wind."

"There is no doubt that onshore wind is one of the cheaper renewable energy option out there," said Pengelly. It followed that this decision had been politically driven by aesthetic dislike of wind farms, rather than based on economic rationalism.

11.44am BST

Fallon killing one industry while "kickstarting" another?

Michael Fallon is having a busy day. He has announced the release of a report that says a shale gas boom in the UK could potentially bring in £33 billion and over 64,000 jobs.

The Business and energy minister said:

“This report shows the huge prize at stake for the UK in terms of jobs and manufacturing in the supply chain for our onshore oil and gas industry.

“Shale gas has the potential to kickstart a whole new industry, building on the world leading expertise the UK already has in the energy sector. There will be significant opportunities across the steel, manufacturing and engineering industries as shale develops.

“This government is fully committed to ensuring the UK not only benefits from the energy security shale gas could provide but also maximising the economic benefit across the country. It’s time to get ready for shale.”

“UN scientists have just warned about the risks of climate change and the need for a massive clean energy shift, yet the Tory right wing seems to think this is happening on a different planet.

“The hypocrisy is stunning. Our binding commitments on renewable energy will have to be met in the next Parliament, so excluding the cheapest source of clean energy can only drive up bills more than necessary. The Tories claim to be on the side of hard-working families, yet their pandering to a small minority who don’t like wind farms is raising energy costs for the rest of us.”

Bruce Davis, joint managing director of Abundance Generation says the decision was politically motivated and yet not backed by the majority of voters.

"Onshore wind is the cheapest, most efficient of the current crop of renewable energy technologies. This announcement seems to be more spin than substance but is no less damaging to investor confidence who are crying out for certainty and stability so that they can get on with the job of renewing the UK’s dirty and out of date energy infrastructure.

"What the Minister appears to be saying is that there is enough wind in the pipeline - i.e. he is not scrapping wind turbines but trying to placate a narrow minority of the Tory right who hate wind farms only slightly more than they hate immigration and benefits cheats.

"At Abundance, we know that the majority of UK voters support the growth of onshore wind, and the Minister’s own department surveys say the same thing. It is time the people were heard on this issue and energy policy decided on the basis of what is right for the country as a whole, rather than what the right wants for its minority vote."

The government's latest polling seems to agree. Two thirds of respondents supported onshore wind in the UK.

"At a time where energy security and the cost of living are taking centre stage in UK politics, proposals to ban onshore wind, a reliable technology that has cut its cost globally by 43% in just four years, come across as highly irrational. While wind farms need to be carefully located, a recent YouGov poll showed that onshore wind was by far the preferred energy infrastructure that Britons would be prepared to host in their communities. These latest proposals on onshore wind reveal a deep misunderstanding of public opinion and the UK's energy security, consumer and environmental interests."

Updated at 2.13pm BST

11.09am BST

Twitter reaction

Compass (@CompassOffice)

Good to see Labour supporting onshore wind whilst Tories happy to kill off the industry http://t.co/ANGvgsVSSB

"That would kill the industry dead" - Wind industry reaction

Jennifer Webber, director of external affairs at RenewableUK, is adamant that onshore wind would not survive the Tories' assault.

"The onshore industry isn't in a place where it could cope without subsidies straight away. If subsidies were cut in 2015 as the minister is suggesting, that would kill the industry dead."

She says the freezing of the carbon price floor means that wind energy will not be able to compete with other subsidised energy production - such as nuclear.

Fallon says the UK already has enough onshore wind to meet the EU's 2020 commitments to greenhouse gas reductions and renewable energy. The EU Parliament is currently locked in debate on its 2030 targets. It is still unsure as to whether Europe will mandate targets for renewables or just emissions reductions. The lack of a renewables target would mean the Tories could shift more resources into their pet nuclear and carbon capture and storage technologies.

Webber says "it is difficult to be as definitive as the minister" when discussing whether onshore wind has already reached the levels required to meet 2020 targets for renewable energy. She says there is growing concern that transport and heating are falling behind and that onshore wind will be required to make up the shortfall.

She also questions the assertion that there is a danger of the UK having too much onshore wind. While she says it is important to maintain a mix, there are many countries already running much higher densities of windfarms than the UK. She says the attraction of onshore wind is that it is a mature technology that is already cheaper than any other renewable and the price is still coming down. Removing subsidies from onshore wind might represent poor value for the public. "To meet [2020] objectives you either need to use onshore wind or you use another technology where you get less bang for your buck."

Updated at 4.49pm BST

9.54am BST

Onshore wind is shaping as a clear policy division between the Conservatives on the one hand and Labour and the Lib Dems on the other. Labour leader Ed Miliband said this week that onshore wind would be a firm part of Labour energy policy in the future.

"People always have to have the right to make their objections, planning issues and so on. I do think personally that we have got to embrace in general both offshore and onshore wind situated in the right way."

He said that the Conservative approach of having "no more offshore wind", which has been championed by John Hayes, a Tory minister without portfolio, is wrong.

"When I was finishing as energy secretary we were trying to get to a stage where we could map across the country where onshore wind would make a difference.

"One of the things people raise is not just we don't like i here, but is it going to make that much of a difference. I don't think we should take the John Hayes position, and say no more onshore wind. We will have manifesto commitments on green energy."

Updated at 9.55am BST

9.38am BST

Welcome to the eco audit

The Conservatives will today announce plans to pull public funding of onshore windfarms and change the way planning permission is granted.

Energy minister Michael Fallon will say that if the Tories win the 2015 election any project that had not already been granted permission would not receive subsidies. Fallon justifies the policy by saying the UK already has enough onshore wind to meet its EU renewable energy commitments for 2020.

"Renewable energy, including onshore wind, has a key role in our future energy supply," he said.

"But we now have enough bill payer-funded onshore wind in the pipeline to meet our renewable energy commitments and there's no requirement for any more."

He also said responsibility for planning permission would be devolved to local authorities. This would give greater prevalence to local concerns and make it more difficult for projects to be realised. Currently large onshore wind projects are designated as "nationally significant infrastructure".

The Tories coalition partners are reportedly unhappy with the move. A Liberal Democrat source told the BBC that Fallon was courting the party right and trying to win votes from Ukip. Onshore wind is the cheapest form of renewable energy.

What would this policy mean for the onshore wind industry? Join in today’s discussion by contributing in the comments below, tweet me or email me. If you are quoting figures or studies, please provide a link to the original source. Follow me on @karlmathiesen for updates throughout the day and later I will return with my own verdict.